I immediately took a liking to the new Doctor. As long as they don't botch the writing I think he's going to be great. I liked Tennatt right away right at the regeneration. Smith took me a couple of episodes to warm up to. It had been so long since I had seen a Doctor Who when the show rebooted that I had not problem with Eccleston. I might have had a problem if I'd come right off the seventh or eight Doctor.

Where are you trying to get this feeling from? There is no published work yet. Only stills.

Even stills give enough information to develop at least a very preliminary impression. If you can't develop an opinion based on visual data, then paintings, sculptures, and the like wouldn't have a point. They exist to convey a specific impression based solely on visual data. You know the phrase "A picture tells a thousand words?" It's true.

For instance, in this case, it tells the age of the performer, which affects how they portray their character. The wardrobe too tells a specific story. How they visually look standing alongside their fellow actors tells how they might interact with them. So on, and so forth. Again, it is a very preliminary feeling, and subject to change as more information becomes available, but a feeling nonetheless.

I find it rather hard to believe that you had absolutely no reaction whatsoever when seeing these stills. That's not how the human brain works. It exists to draw conclusions from the senses, even if you only have visual data to work on.

Even stills give enough information to develop at least a very preliminary impression. If you can't develop an opinion based on visual data, then paintings, sculptures, and the like wouldn't have a point. They exist to convey a specific impression based solely on visual data. You know the phrase "A picture tells a thousand words?" It's true. For instance, in this case, it tells the age of the performer, which affects how they portray their character. The wardrobe too tells a specific story. How they visually look standing alongside their fellow actors tells how they might interact with them. So on, and so forth. Again, it is a very preliminary feeling, and subject to change as more information becomes available, but a feeling nonetheless. I find it rather hard to believe that you had absolutely no reaction whatsoever when seeing these stills. That's not how the human brain works. It exists to draw conclusions from the senses, even if you only have visual data to work on.

No, I didn't. Because I would be judging a performance based upon a single point in time. A picture may tell a thousand words but the character I will be judging will be thousands of those pictures, plus movement plus sound. Therefore, a single picture is still a very small sampling.

I will use a different adage. Don't judge a book by its cover, which usually has a picture.

As for age, I have been of the position that the youngest Doctor ever played the Doctor as older than almost every Doctor before him. Yet, the picture says he is a young punk.

I'm new to Dr. Who, so my opinion isn't worth much, but I rank them the same way. But I loved all 3 of them. Since I've never seen an older--prime of his life, Rob--doctor, I can't quite picture it, but I'm sure it will be fine.

I'm hopeful, because as much as I wanted to like Smith, I could never really 100% like him.

He had some good episodes, but most of the time it just didn't work for me. Just too whimsical or something, I can't place it.

I rank
Tennant,
Eccleson
Smith

I'm not sure if the "problem" with Smith was the acting or the writing. Everything was just all over the place and they tended to try to out-clever themselves at every turn. A lot of the last two seasons has been one big WTF for me.

I'm not sure if the "problem" with Smith was the acting or the writing. Everything was just all over the place and they tended to try to out-clever themselves at every turn. A lot of the last two seasons has been one big WTF for me.

I'm not sure what the appropriate thread is, these days, for a general Doctor Who plot-related question. I'm doing a re-watch as my daughter watches for the first time, and something is puzzling me. We just finished Season 6 last night (my questions contain spoilers through Season 7, though):

Spoiler:

In the finale of Season 6, the Doctor takes the Pandorica, with its restorative energy, into the heart of the exploding TARDIS, thus triggering Big Bang 2 - a reboot of the universe. Only it's a Doctorless universe - until Amy remembers him at her wedding, he never existed in this new universe other then as the Raggedy Man imaginary friend of her youth. Is that right? If so, here are the questions I'm grappling with:

1. What was her imaginary friend based upon, if the Doctor never existed at that point in her childhood?

2. River made an appearance at her wedding and gave the blue spoilers book as a gift (blank pages, because the doctor didn't exist at that point). Why did River herself exist, though? River is Amy's child and had her Time Lord traits by virtue of Amy's time traveling and being born as a child of the time vortex or something like that, if I recall. If the Doctor doesn't exist, then how did the circumstances arise for River to?

3. In "Turn Left" in the prior season, we were shown what a Doctorless world would be like - all the bad things that would have happened had Donna not joined with him and had he died as a result. Why, after the Big Bang 2 but before Amy remembers him back into being, does a Doctorless world seem to be just fine?

4. Why is it sometimes a problem for things to loop back into their own personal time stream, but other times not? In this episode (Big Bang) the Doctor touches his sonic screwdriver to his other sonic screwdriver, and sparks literally fly. But adult Amy and young Amelia can interact and touch without a problem. Just bending the rules to fit the story, or am I misunderstanding something on a deeper level?

__________________Facebook: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | XBOX LIVE gamertag: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. | Twitter: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.